MovieChat Forums > Solace (2016) Discussion > Has very interesting details, but ultima...

Has very interesting details, but ultimately it fails. (spoilers, ofc)

posted 8 years ago by alirioaguero2
4 replies | jump to latest

The good: Hopkins, Farrell, scene with Xander Berkeley and the one when Hopkins hugs the kid. It raises a question about 'mercy killing'.

But it went south pretty soon (and I'm even not counting in the horrible spoiler trailer):

1) There is zero reason why the killer and the main character are psychic. It could all be delivered way better if the killer was the medic or someone visiting hospitals instead. The hunt could have been done better and more believable through actual deduction instead of hyper-stylized mumbo-jumbo sequences of vision. I love a good paranormal film, but it was all so secondary and wasted in here.

2) There is no reason whatsoever that someone who calls himself a Samaritan sends any kind of clues to the police or wants to die for that matter. In his mind, he did nothing wrong, so why pay for it?

3) Why did he kill that one person so violently anyway?

4) Who was the shooter at the gallery who died after the crash? Did they ever explain?

5) Unlike I Origins or Age of Adaline, the combination of fantasy and technological procedure here is awful. Everything relies of visions and then we have all those diagnosis and exact data which are frankly ultimately more meaningful.

6) What's with sudden thing that Jefferey Dean Morgan had cancer? Also, since we have two characters with any impact who died from cancer (Morgan and Hopkins' daughter) why not use one of them with question of weather it is right? All random people who would die anyway weren't much of a stake to a viewer. And after Morgan was gone, I knew Cornish would survive. No real threat there.

7) Hopkins' and Farrell's characters just met but because of that 'power' they try to establish them as sworn frennemies? They are not Hannibal/Will or Batman/Joker no matter how much last 10 minutes want us to believe that. Hence, villain's death had no impact either.

8) I don't recall there being any hint of Hopkins killing his daughter before the twist in the last scene. It just came out of nowhere.

[–] npm_petre_mihai 8 years ago

1) Because they are.

2) He didn`t send clues to the police, he send it to Hopkins.

3) To lure Joe, to mimic the MO of the number 4. That person which he kills was also an ill one.

4) Another killer. Why do you think he run when he saw the police, also Ambrose stated that he helped police catch a psycho.

5) No idea, I haven`t seen those movies.

6) Because cancer it`s sudden.

7) I don`t understand your problem here. They have same goal but different paths, Ambrose kills too early, John waited until the last minute.

8) That was predictable since the beginning of the movie.

[–] andibeheldapalehorse 8 years ago

Wow, you really didn't understand the movie, at all.
I can say that because, number 3: He DIDN't kill anyone violently. And number 4) but HE did. The guy at the gallery was a maniac, and colins handed him to the police by planting the blouse or skirt or whatever it was for the police to find. I don't understand how you could miss that, they even say it load and clear at some point.
Also:
2) he was dying himself and wanted someone to take over the mercy killing for him. Hopkins was the right choice to take over because number 8) he had already mercy killed before. And colin's thoughts were that making hopkins kill once again, would make him continue on that path. So since he was already dying, he could just as well do it with a purpose.
and 7) well, you just didn't understand what was going on. Hopefully it's a bit clearer now.

Not a great movie, but it was a solid 7, in my opinion.

I'm the product of a fu7ked up generation. I can't even seem to find a sunset to walk off into

[–] dahl_2 8 years ago

First off, I agree that the movie was a horrible mess.

1) Agreed. I've rarely encountered movies I've enjoyed where the killer turns out to be someone never before seen in the movie and therefore completely impossible for the audience to predict, rendering all the little clues dramaturgically meaningless. It's cheap af.

2) The clues were not intended for the police, but Clancy. He wanted Clancy to know that he was psychic as well.

3) He did not.

4) This is the guy that killed one person so violently (he even has paintings identical to the murder scene in his apartment). And yes, the shooters role in the movie was explained. Ambrose wanted to kill two birds with one stone; lead the police to the killer so that they'd catch a murderous psychopath, while the psycho at the same time would shoot Joe, leading to his death (Ambrose knew Joe was dying, and this was another of his "mercy killings" - he just wasn't the one actually carrying out the mruder this time).

5) The visions and the investigation were disjointed - they didn't help one another and they both ended up finding the killer. All movie long Clancy would know something through his visions, only for the FBI to figure out the same thing the scene after. Pointless.

6) Not quite understanding the question here, but the reason Joe had cancer was merely so that the screenwriter could through in the cheap twist I mentioned in 4).

7) I think it's pretty obvious that Ambrose had known about Clancy for a long time and looked up to him, whereas Clancy didn't have a clue who Ambrose is. This is one of the reasons why Ambrose is so emotional in their scenes while Clancy is cool as ice. I did not get a "frenemy" vibe at ll, nor do I think it was intended.

8) I saw it coming a mile away, to be honest. But no, there weren't any obvious clues - it was just an obvious thing from a dramaturgical perspective, considering how the movie was written.

[–] nak88 8 years ago

So it failed because you couldn't grasp any of the movie? And it really wasn't all that complicated. I've seen some bad posts on here before but this one is right up there with the most moronic